Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page
Go to Issue No. 1 August 1995
Go to Issue No. 2 January 1996
Go to Issue No. 4 March 1997

FOREWORD

As indicated in the last newsletter, the next meeting of the CSCAP Steering Committee will be held in Canberra on 8-10 December, only the second time that the meeting has been held outside Kuala Lumpur. Preparations are well under way and the Minister of Foreign Affairs has agreed to welcome the delegates at the opening function. We are expecting the participants to include representatives from the Peoples Republic of China for their first attendance at a CSCAP Steering Committee meeting. It will also be the first meeting to be co-chaired by the new Co-Chair, Ambassador Matsunaga of Japan.

As well as the normal administrative and organisational issues that have to be dealt with by the Steering committee to support the work of the CSCAP working groups, we are organising a morning session to discuss the interaction of economic and security issues in the Asia Pacific. Economic issues have certainly become an important component of the security agenda in the region, with weight being given in particular to the impacts of economic interdependence and integration of the various countries in the region on security relations. There is a case for specific study of the interaction of economics and security in a working group context and the Working Group on Comprehensive Security has taken economic interdependence under its umbrella. It will be having its first meeting in Wellington on that subject a few days before the December meeting in Canberra.

There is also a need, however, to ensure that the economic aspects of security are internalised within the work of each of the other working groups. The discussion in the Steering Group will take the form, therefore, of an introduction on behalf of each of the working groups about where economic aspects fit into the subject areas of their group, beginning with Terence O'Brien, Co-chair of the Comprehensive Security group with Malaysia, on economic interdependence.

For the North Pacific Working Group, co-chaired by Canada and Japan, the presence of the Chinese at this meeting, referred to above, is not only important in itself, and in particular for regulating the CSCAP relationship with the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), it means that Chinese participation will be facilitated at future meetings of the group. Although their contribution in each of the groups will be important, for the North Pacific Working Group, the presence of Chinese participants should be crucial in enabling the Working Group to extend the range of issues its covers more effectively.

The Working Group on Maritime Cooperation, co-chaired by Australia and Indonesia, had a second meeting in April (see below) and is involved a number of related activities. It will be concentrating at its next meeting on regional oceans governance and security. The fourth meeting of the Group on CSBMs (see below) had on its agenda, among other things, the concept of nuclear safety and non-proliferation and is expected to give further emphasis to this issue at future meetings. Given the interest expressed in the region on the subject, the Steering Committee has also been considering proposals for a working group on transnational crime (see below). It decided that this would initially be the subject matter of a study group.

AUS-CSCAP's next meeting will be on 5-6 February 1997.
Professor Stuart Harris, Co-Chair AUS-CSCAP

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

THE THIRD MEETING OF THE ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM (ARF)

The third ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) met on 23 July in Jakarta under the chairmanship of Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas. The meeting was a further maturing of the ARF process, with increasingly substantive dialogue on key security issues and a new process for handling particularly sensitive issues. The meeting also saw agreement on some practical cooperative measures arising out of the last year's intersessional activity and on an extensive programme of both first and second track intersessional activity for 1996/97. The ARF is attended by Foreign Ministers accompanied by one senior official with notetakers listening from a separate room. the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, attended accompanied by the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Philip Flood. The two plenary sessions on 23 July were preceded by an informal pre-ARF dinner the evening before. A Chairman's Statement, by tradition the only formal documentation from the meeting, was issued by Foreign Minister Alatas at a press conference which he gave at the conclusion of the meeting. (A copy of the statement is contained on pages 2-5 of this newsletter).

The approach taken by Foreign Minister Alatas, as Chairman, and the evident increase in 'comfort' levels by Ministers participating in this forum, contributed to more focused and open exchanges of views on regional developments than previously, with Ministers moving away from delivering prepared texts and instead discussing issues topic by topic. Burma, the Korean Peninsula, South China Sea, nuclear testing, the conclusion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, nuclear weapon free zones and landmines were canvassed frankly but sensitively. Drug-trafficking and related issues were also raised for the first time, although there was some questioning whether this should be a matter for discussion in the ARF or in the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference which is held immediately after the ARF.

At the pre-ARF dinner, Ministers had a long and frank discussion about the current situation in Burma (in the absence of Burma which took its seat the following day). This revealed concern over developments amongst ASEAN and non-ASEAN countries alike. There was welcome agreement on the need to promote political reform, although there remained some differences over the most effective approach to take with Burma to achieve this. Given this degree of commonality and partly on the initiative of Australia, it was agreed that the ARF Chairman should convey the sentiments expressed at the dinner to the Burmese Foreign Minister, requesting that he respond to the concerns raised during the ARF plenary. Burmese Foreign Minister U Ohn Gyaw subsequently made a statement to the ARF plenary, in which he outlined how Burma intended to move towards a more democratic type of constitution, though without indicating when this would happen. this 'good offices' role for the Chairman - a new one for the ARF - was invaluable in enabling the degree of regional concern to be effectively conveyed to the Burmese Government. This demonstrated also that the ARF is evolving into a body capable of developing innovative ways of handling sensitive regional issues and made a real contribution to the participants' sense of the ARF's effectiveness and potential.

At the informal pre-ARF dinner agreement was also reached on the criteria for membership, and on the basis of these, the admission of India and Burma. Those countries took their seats at the ARF plenary the following day. The criteria include the commitment to key ARF goals and previous ARF decisions and statements; relevance to the peace and security of the ARF 'geographical footprint' (North East and South East Asia and Oceania); gradual expansion and consultation and consensus by all ARF members on all future membership decisions. Indonesia had developed these criteria with input from other ARF members, during its 1995-96 chairmanship. Australia welcomes the adoption of these criteria, particularly as they serve to keep the focus of the ARF on the East Asia/Pacific, the area in which Australia's primary strategic interests lie. There was little discussion of other membership bids, reflecting the generally cautious approach of many ARF participants to further expansion at this stage.

At the plenary session of the third ARF, Ministers also agreed to recommendations made by the ARF Senior Officials Meeting on some practical cooperative measures which had been suggested by the 1995/96 official-level intersessional meetings, including: the voluntary submission of annual defence policy statements to the ARF; the regular publication of defence white papers; enhanced high level defence contacts and exchanges among defence staff colleges, including through a meeting of heads of national defence colleges and training; and the circulation to other ARF countries of submissions to the UN Conventional Arms Register.

Ministers agreed to the continuation into the next intersessional period, that is, 1996/97, of the Intersessional Support Group on Confidence Building Measures (ISG on CBMs) and the Intersessional Meeting on Search and Rescue (ISM on SAR). They also agreed that the Intersessional Meeting on Peacekeeping (ISM on PKO) should continue as an umbrella for two specific activities - a 'train the trainers' workshop being co-hosted by Malaysia and Australia, and a de-mining course, to be hosted by New Zealand - and added a new activity, at the official level, an ISM on Disaster Relief Coordination. China and the Philippines will co-host the 1996/97 ISG on CBMs. At this stage, one meeting of this group has been scheduled for March in Beijing, with the possibility of a second meeting in Manila. CBMs considered in the ISG are generally defence-related and this group has seen active participation by defence civilians and the military. Issues likely to be covered in the ISG in 1996/97 include the UN Register of Conventional Arms and notification of and exchanging of observers to military exercises.

The ISM on SAR, co-chaired by Singapore and the United States, will hold its second meeting in Singapore in March 1997. Its focus is moving towards the implementation of more specific, technical projects such as cooperation between training institutions and the conduct of paper and field exercises. The new ISM on Disaster Relief will be co-hosted by Thailand and New Zealand, and will be convened in Auckland in February 1997. The ARF also endorsed the holding of two 'second track' (academic) seminars in the second half of 1996 - on non-proliferation, to be co-hosted by the EU (Germany), Indonesia and Australia, and on preventive diplomacy, to be hosted by the EU (France).

Australia is pleased with the progress being made in these early days of the ARF's development and looks forward to participating in and contributing to the ARF's solid programme of intersessional work over the coming year.
Rosemary Greaves, Director, Regional Security Section
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT THE THIRD ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM, JAKARTA, 23 JULY 1996

1. The Third ASEAN Regional Forum was held in Jakarta on 23 July 1996. The Meeting was chaired by H.E. Mr. Ali Alatas, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia.
   
2. The Meeting was attended by all ARF participants. The Secretary General of ASEAN was also present.
   
3. The Ministers recalled the decision of the Second ASEAN Regional Forum Ministerial Meeting in Brunei Darussalam in July 1995, requesting the Chairman of the ARF to study the question of future participation and to develop a set of criteria for such participation for the consideration of the Third ARF through the ARF-SOM.
   
4. The Meeting noted with appreciation the round of consultations made by the Chairman with the representatives of ARF participants to obtain their views on the matter. On the basis of the inputs and comments received, the Chairman had prepared a paper on criteria for participation in the ARF.
   
5. In this regard, the Ministers considered the guiding principles and criteria suggested in the Chairman's Paper on Criteria for Participation in the ARF as recommended by the ARF-SOM and agreed on the following:
   Guiding Principles
   
   1. Any new participant must subscribe to and work cooperatively to help achieve ARF's key goals. As stated in the ARF Concept Paper (which was annexed to the Chairman's Statement of 1 August 1995), the main challenge of the ARF is to sustain and enhance the unprecedented period of peace and prosperity now enjoyed by the Asia-Pacific region. All participants should work to develop an agenda which focuses on the security concerns of the Asia-Pacific region.
      
   2. The ARF should only admit participants that can directly affect the peace and security of the region on which the ARF shall focus its peace-building and peace making efforts. As the Asia-Pacific region could theoretically cover a large part of the world's surface (including the two American continents), it would be wise to spell out clearly the specific region - or the 'geographical footprint' - that the ARF will concentrate on. It is clear that there is already an implicit consensus among ARF participants that this 'geographical footprint' will cover all of East Asia, both Northeast and Southeast Asia, as well as Oceania. In the short term, it would not be wise to expand this geographical scope for the key ARF activities. (Some ARF activities, for example, Cooperation on Search and Rescue, will cover the larger Asia-Pacific region and not just East Asia).
      
   3. The ARF should expand carefully and cautiously. As the ARF process is barely three years old, it would be advisable to consolidate the ARF process before expanding it rapidly. Each new participant must be admitted on the firm understanding that its participation is necessary for the ARF to accomplish its key goals.
      
   4. All questions regarding participation should be decided by consultations among all ARF participants. As stated in the Chairman's Statement of 1 August 1995, 'A successful ARF requires the active, full and equal participation and cooperation of all participants. However, ASEAN undertakes the obligation to be the driving force'. The following paragraph states 'The ARF process shall move at a pace comfortable to all participants'. These statements suggest that regarding ARF participation the ARF will have to take into consideration both the views of all the participants and the special needs and interests of the ASEAN States. Hence, all members of ASEAN shall automatically become participants of ARF. (Note: The founding fathers of ASEAN agreed in 1967 that ASEAN will eventually become a community of ten, encompassing all Southeast Asian States).

   
   Criteria
   Bearing these principles in mind, the ARF participants agree that the criteria for new participants should be as follows:
   

   1. Commitment: All new participants, who will all be sovereign states, must subscribe to, and work cooperatively to help achieve the ARF's key goals. Prior to their admission, all new participants should agree to abide by and respect fully the decisions and statements already made by the ARF. All ASEAN members are automatically participants of ARF.
      
   2. Relevance: A new participant should be admitted only if it can be demonstrated that it has an impact on the peace and security of the 'geographical footprint' of key ARF activities (i.e. Northeast and Southeast Asia as well as Oceania).
      
   3. Gradual expansion: Efforts must be made to control the number of participants to a manageable level to ensure the effectiveness of the ARF.
      
   4. Consultations: All applicants for participation should be submitted to the Chairman of the ARF, who will consult all the other ARF participants at the SOM and ascertain whether a consensus exists for the admission of the new participant. Actual decisions on participation will be approved by the Ministers.

   
   

6. The Ministers welcomed India and Myanmar joining the ARF as new participants and took note of their express commitment to help achieve the ARF's key goals and to abide by and respect fully the decisions and statements already made by the ARF.
   
7. The Meeting discussed a wide range of issues relevant to the question of peace and security of the Asia-Pacific region. In this context, they highlighted the following:
   
   • The signing of the SEANWFZ Treaty by all Heads of Government of Southeast Asia countries in Bangkok in December 1995 signifies another important contribution of the countries of Southeast Asia to the strengthening of the security in the region and to the maintenance of world peace and stability. This is consistent with the 1995 NPT Review welcoming the development of further nuclear weapons free zones.
     
   • Nuclear testing remains a concern in the region. The Meeting welcomed the end of nuclear testing in the South Pacific and confirmed their understanding that the Asia Pacific region would shortly be free of nuclear testing. The Meeting called upon all states participating in the Conference on Disarmament, in particular the nuclear weapons states, to conclude, as a task of the highest priority, a universal and multilaterally effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which contributes to nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects so as to enable its signature by the outset of the fifty-first session of the UNGA. The Meeting expressed the hope that on the on-going negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to be reconvened on 29 July 1996 would lead to a CTBT which would receive the support of all concerned parties.
     
   • With reference to the issue of the global elimination of anti-personnel mines, the Meeting welcomed the decisions of several states to impose moratoria and ban on the production, export and operational use of these weapons. The Meeting recognised the need, following conflict, for reinforcing international support for efforts to detect and remove landmines and to assist victims.
     
   • On the South China Sea, the Meeting welcomed the efforts by countries concerned to seek solutions by peaceful means in accordance with international law in general and with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 in particular. The Meeting also noted the positive contributions made by the Workshop Series on Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea.
     
   • Bearing in mind the importance of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, the Meeting stressed the need to establish a peace mechanism and also emphasised that the 1953 Armistice Agreement until then should remain valid. The Meeting reiterated the importance of the resumption of dialogue between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea. The Meeting noted the importance of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) and encouraged ARF participants to consider giving further financial and political support to KEDO.
   • The Ministers considered the Track One and Track Two activities since the Second ARF in Bandar Seri Begawan.
     
   • The Ministers took note with appreciation of the Summary Reports of the Track-One activities presented by the respective co-chairmen of the activities, namely the meetings of the Inter-sessional Support Group (ISG) on Confidence Building Measures held in Tokyo on 18-19 January 1996 and in Jakarta on 15-16 April 1996, the Inter-sessional Meeting (ISM) on Peace Keeping Operations held in Kuala Lumpur on 1-3 April 1996 and the Inter-sessional Meeting (ISM) on Search and Rescue Cooperation and Coordination held in Honolulu on 4-7 March 1996.
     
8. In this connection, the Ministers endorsed the proposals made by the Track-One Activities which appear in their respective Summary Reports as follows:
   
   1. The Inter-Sessional Support Group on Confidence Building Measures
      
      1. Dialogue on Security Perceptions
         
         1. Dialogue on security perceptions should be continued within the ARF process, including at inter-sessional meetings.
            
         2. Information-sharing on dialogue and other activities of the ARF participants should be continued on the basis of papers voluntarily submitted by participants. Such papers could also cover defence contacts and exchange programmes undertaken by the participants.

         
         

      2. Defence Policy Publication
         
         1. The ARF participants are further encouraged to submit annually a defence policy statement to the ARF SOM on a voluntary basis. Regular publication of defence white papers or similar papers would also be welcomed.
            
         2. Exchanges of views on the information provided in such statements and papers should be encouraged in future ARF dialogues.

         
         

      3. Enhancing High-level Defence Contacts and Exchanges among Defence Staff Colleges and Training
         
         1. ARF SOM is open to defence representatives and encourages their greater participation in inter-sessional activities.
            
         2. The ARF participants should be encouraged to submit papers on their defence contacts and other exchange programmes to the ARF SOM. Such papers could cover security dialogues and other activities they undertake.
            
         3. The ARF participants should be encouraged to conduct exchanges among national defence colleges, including information sharing and personnel exchanges, and to convene a meeting of heads of national defence colleges or equivalent to this end;

         
         

      4. The UN Register of Conventional Arms (UNRCA)
         
         1. The discussions on the UN Register within the ARF framework should be continued, with a view to enhancing security in the region;
            
         2. The ARF participants should be encouraged to circulate on a voluntary basis the same data to the ARF countries at the time of its submission to the UN, while avoiding unnecessary administrative duplication;
            
         3. The ARF participants should be encouraged to work together within the UN to promote more global participation in the UN Register.

         
         

      5. Additional Confidence Building Measures
         
         1. completing and maintaining a current list of ARF contact points;
            
         2. exchanging information on the role of defence authorities in disaster relief, and considering the convening of an intersessional meeting on this matter;
            
         3. exchanging information on a voluntary basis on some of the on-going observer participation in and on-going notification of military exercises among ARF participants with a view to discussing the possibilities of such measures in selected exercises;
            
         4. encouraging the participants to support actively internationally recognised global arms control and disarmament legal agreements, specifically the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and the successful conclusion of CTBT.

         
         

      6. The ISG on CBMs should continue its activities for another year in order to review the implementation of CBMs to be approved by the Third ARF Ministerial Meeting, and to further discuss measures to be promoted in the future, with particular emphasis on proposals identified in the Summary Report.

      
      

   2. The Inter-Sessional Meeting (ISM) on Search and Rescue (SAR) Coordination and Cooperation
      A meeting of SAR experts and officials who are familiar with the ARF process should be convened to further discuss and explore cooperation in the following areas:
      
      1. The increased sharing of training facilities and expertise in the region to enhance the capabilities of SAR personnel.
         
      2. Further cooperation between training institutions and the facilitation of a greater flow of information, for example, with the establishment of a directory of training courses.
         
      3. Movements towards standardisation of SAR manuals, training and procedures.
         
      4. Possible increased practical training and exercises such as:
         
         • attaching SAR personnel to the Rescue Coordination Centres (RCCs) of other countries for on-the-job training and experience;
           
         • training of personnel other than SAR Mission Coordinators (SMCs) such as pilots and medical personnel involved in SAR;
           
         • conducting paper and field exercises; and
           
         • exploring the possibility of establishing an internet web site between RCCs.

      
      

   3. The Inter-Sessional Meeting (ISM) on Peacekeeping Operations
      
      1. Current Status of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations
         
         1. ARF participants work together more closely within the ARF context and also in the United Nations Special Committee on Peace Keeping Operations as part of an ongoing dialogue to exchange views and experiences of UN Peacekeeping Operations.
            
         2. ARF participants are encouraged to become Parties to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.
            
         3. ARF participants endeavour to pay their assessed contributions to peace keeping operations on time, in full and without conditions.

         
         

      2. Training for Peace Support Operations
         
         1. ARF participants promote greater sharing of peace keeping experience and expertise among ARF participants voluntarily through, inter-alia:
            
            • holding training courses on specialised peacekeeping topics;
              
            • sharing curricula and course information;
              
            • developing a roster of peacekeeping trainers;
              
            • offering available places in national training programmes to other ARF participants;
              
            • assisting where possible in financing of peacekeeping training;
              
            • fostering cooperation among national peace keeping training centres.

            
            

         2. ARF participants use United Nations training manuals and materials as the basis of their training programmes for national contributions to UN peacekeeping operations.
            
         3. ARF participants are encouraged to support the peacekeeping capacity of the UN through loan of military and civilian personnel and through other bilateral arrangements.

         
         

      3. Stand-by Arrangements
         
         1. ARF participants work closely, according to their capabilities, with UNDPKO to reinforce the ability of the UN to respond effectively and rapidly to crisis situations.
            
         2. ARF participants consider, where possible, taking part in the Standby Arrangements in order to facilitate the planning and deployment of UN peacekeeping operations.

   
   

9. Pursuant to the relevant recommendations of the ISG on CBMs, the Ministers agreed that the ISG on CBMs continue its activities for another year and an ISM on Disaster Relief be convened. Similarly, the ISM on Search and Rescue Coordination and Cooperation should continue its activities for one more meeting, attended by SAR experts and officials who are familiar with the ARF process, to be convened in Singapore in the first half of 1997 and remain co-chaired by the present co-chairmen namely Singapore and the United States.
   
10. The Ministers also agreed that the ISM on Peacekeeping Operations co-chaired by Canada and Malaysia continue to function for another year to coordinate the implementation of the specific recommendations adopted by this ISM, including the convening of a regional 'Train the Trainers' Workshop in Kuala Lumpur and the conducting of a course on de-mining. New Zealand has offered to host the course on de-mining.
    
11. The Ministers welcomed the offers made by China and the Philippines to co-host the ISG on CBMs in Beijing in early March 1997 and by Thailand and New Zealand to co-host the ISM on Disaster Relief.
    
12. Pursuant to the decision of the Second ARF Ministerial Meeting, the Ministers noted with appreciation that a number of participants had submitted defence policy statements or defence policy papers.
    
13. The Ministers took note of the report presented by the Chairman of the Track Two Seminar on Principles of Security and Stability in the Asia Pacific held in Moscow on 23-24 April 1996. The Ministers observed that the Seminar had been useful, particularly in promoting better understanding of the respective values and aspirations of the participants with regard to security and stability in the Asia Pacific and agreed that the dialogue on the matter should continue.
    
14. The Ministers also noted the EU proposals: a Track Two Seminar on Non-proliferation to be co-sponsored by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) of Indonesia and Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) of Germany and the Peace Research Centre, Australian National University (ANU) of Australia in Jakarta on 6-7 December 1996; a Track Two Seminar on Preventive Diplomacy to be co-sponsored by l'Institut Francais des Relations Internationales (IFRI) and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) of Indonesia in Paris on 7-8 November 1996.
    
15. With a view to assisting ARF participants in preparing their human resources for ARF activities, the Ministers agreed that, in principle, Track One activities be carried out in the first half of the calendar year while Track Two activities in the second half of the calendar year.
    
16. The Ministers also agreed to consider at the next ARF Meetings the question of drug trafficking and other related trans-national issues such as economic crimes, including money laundering, which could constitute threats to the security of the countries of the region.
    
17. It was noted that the discussions throughout the Meeting remained positive, although there was some divergence of views on the subjects discussed. The participants were open and candid in expressing their views but this did not generate tension or dissension in the room. Instead, there was a tendency towards creating a harmonious environment. This positive mood demonstrated that the overall trend remains encouraging.
    
18. The participants also displayed a high degree of comfort in their interactions with each other. The ARF is still a fairly young process. Its success was never pre-ordained. It is therefore worth noting that the increasing comfort level among the participants at the Third ARF demonstrates that the ARF is progressing at a good pace. Future meetings should try to build upon this demonstrated base of friendly and frank discussions among the participants as this will in turn pave the way for agreements on substantive issues in the coming years.

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

AUSTRALIAN MEMBER COMMITTEE
Membership as of 15/09/96

Professor Desmond Ball
Co-chair AUS-CSCAP
Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, RSPAS
Australian National University

Professor Stuart Harris
Co-chair AUS-CSCAP
Northeast Asia Program, RSPAS
Australian National University

Mr Ken Harris
Managing Director
Australian Defence Industries Lt'd
Vice Admiral RAK Walls AO RAN
Vice Chief of the Defence Force

Professor Peter Drysdale
Executive Director
Australia-Japan Centre
Australian National University

Professor Paul Dibb
Head
Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, RSPAS
Australian National University

Professor Nancy Viviani
Chair of International Politics
Faculty of Asian and International Studies
Griffith University

Professor Stephen FitzGerald
Chairman
The Asia-Australia Institute
University of NSW

Assoc. Professor Kenneth McPherson
Executive Director
The Indian Ocean Centre
Curtin University of Technology

Dr Lesley Jackman
Executive Director
Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA)

The Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair MP
Chair
Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

The Hon L.J. Brereton MP
Deputy Chair
Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

Mr Alan Behm
First Assistant Secretary
Department of Defence

Mr Andrew R. Johnson
Chief Executive
Transfield Defence Systems

Mr Ian Cousins
First Assistant Secretary
International Security Division
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Mr John Dauth LVO
First Assistant Secretary
South and South-East Asia Division
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)

Mr Barry Johnston
Chairman
Project Marketing Australia Pty Ltd

Dr Rikki Kersten
Director
Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific
Ms Penny Wensley
First Assistant Secretary
North Asia Division
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)

Professor Andrew Mack
Head
Department of International Relations
Australian National University

Air Marshal (Ret'd) Ray Funnell
Principal,
The Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies

Mr Michael O'Connor
Executive Director
Australian Defence Association (ADA)

Professor Joseph Camilleri
Head
School of Politics
La Trobe University

Commodore Sam Bateman RAN (Retd.)
Centre for Maritime Policy
The University of Wollongong

Mr John McFarlane
Director of Intelligence
Australian Federal Police

Professor Carl Thayer
Head
Politics
Australian Defence Force Academy

Captain Ian Watts
Principal Adviser
Defence and Space Industries Group
Dept of Asian Relations Trade and Industry Northern Territory Government

Assoc. Professor Anthony Bergin
Director
Australian Defence Studies Centre
University College
Australian Defence Force Academy

Dr Russell Trood
Director
Centre for the Study of Australia-Asia Relations
Griffith University

REGIONAL MARITIME SECURITY

Maritime security in the Asia Pacific region has been the theme of two CSCAP activities in recent months. These were the second meeting of the CSCAP Working Group on Maritime Cooperation held in Kuala Lumpur in April, and a 'second track' forum on 'Maritime Security in East Asia' sponsored by European CSCAP and held at Wilton House in Sussex in the UK in early July.

The Kuala Lumpur meeting was attended by representatives of eleven CSCAP member committees. It discussed issues of naval cooperation, cooperative marine scientific research, the marine environment, shipping and marine safety, and the resolution of marine resource and boundary disputes, as well as the implications of these issues for regional security. Considerable attention was given to the problems posed by the maritime geography of the region, including the effects of disputed islands, and the difficulties of achieving straight line maritime boundaries. Regional security would be enhanced if regional countries chose to give less emphasis to claims to sovereignty at sea and preferred, where possible, a more function-oriented approach to resolving pressing issues of environmental protection, oceans governance and resource development without first reaching agreement on the underlying sovereignty and boundary issues. While much of the recent focus has been on the South China Sea, similar problems to those of that area are evident elsewhere in East Asian waters.

The Working Group is now pursuing several initiatives. A drafting group will meet in Jakarta 3-4 December to consider a draft document on 'Guidelines for Regional Maritime Cooperation', while another sub-committee of the Working Group is investigating a possible program of annual workshops on regional marine and maritime affairs. The next meeting of the full Working Group is likely to be held in the middle of next year and will focus on the theme of 'Regional Oceans Governance and Security'.

The forum in the UK addressed a wide range of maritime security issues, including changes in naval interests, force structures and capabilities in East Asian countries, the exploitation of marine resources, the implications of economic interdependence, the significance of seaborne trade in the region, piracy and maritime arms control. Although the meeting was primarily concerned with Europe's interests in East Asian maritime security, the presence of a significant number of experts from the East Asian region ensured that discussion was not excessively Euro-centric.

Alternative views were expressed at the meeting on the significance of seaborne trade and the vulnerability of sea lines of communication (SLOCs). Although diversionary routeing was sometimes possible, in the particular geographic circumstances of East Asia, there was no real alternative to the South China Sea and the other seas through which passed the 'steel corridor' of shipping between the Malacca and Singapore Straits and Northeast Asia. Shipping along this route has increased enormously with the growth of intra-regional and inter-regional trade between Northeast and Southeast Asia. As far as East Asia is concerned, there is no real alternative to the SLOCs along the East coast of the Asian mainland. Consideration has also to be given to the particular cargoes being carried and their relative strategic significance.

Problems of maritime sovereignty and establishing maritime boundaries in the region also attracted attention at the forum. Conventional straight-line maritime boundaries will be very difficult to achieve in the marginal seas of East Asia (ie, South China Sea, East China Sea, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, etc) due to the geography of these seas, the number of littoral countries involved, and the need for multilateral negotiations. This means that the current system of marine environmental management and resource exploitation in East Asia is not working because it is based on national rights and obligations. It is ineffective because of overlapping claims to maritime jurisdiction, the lack of agreed maritime boundaries, and countries acting largely in their own self interest without agreed limits to their national jurisdiction.

To some extent, maritime disorder exists in the region with unregulated pollution of the marine environment (particularly from land-based sources), over fishing, marine environmental degradation (eg, the destruction of habitats, mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds, etc), frequent illegal activity at sea (ie, unlicensed fishing, illegal migration, piracy and drug smuggling), and countries unable to borrow the funds necessary to develop offshore resources because of uncertainty surrounding their sovereign rights to such resources. In this regard the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) may actually have hindered rather than helped due to its encouragement to nations to stake wide unilateral maritime claims at sea, and its lack of clear guidance on principles for establishing maritime boundaries.

Chinese participants played a positive role at the UK meeting but so far China has not been represented at the CSCAP Maritime Cooperation Working Group. This is a pity as marine and maritime affairs are clearly providing fertile ground for regional cooperation and confidence-building, and China is a dominant maritime power in the East Asia region.

Sam Bateman
Centre for Maritime Policy, University of Wollongong

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

STUDY GROUP ON TRANSNATIONAL CRIME

At the AUS-CSCAP meeting of 8 February, Mr. John McFarlane of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) presented a paper on transnational crime, arguing that the activities of criminal groups were now posing a serious threat to national and international security, including in the Asian-Pacific region. The AUS-CSCAP committee felt that the regional security implications of transnational crime was an appropriate subject for CSCAP to take up, bearing in mind that the CSCAP Working Group on Comprehensive and Cooperative Security had already identified transnational crime as an issue warranting further attention.

As a consequence the AFP, in conjunction with the Office of Strategic Crime Assessment (OSCA) was asked to prepare a draft proposal to establish a CSCAP Working Group on Transnational Crime to be put before the CSCAP Steering Committee meeting scheduled for 4 June in Kuala Lumpur. The regional reaction was very supportive, and it was decided to establish a Study Group on Transnational Crime which would initially meet under the aegis of the existing Working Group on Comprehensive and Cooperative Security. A decision would be made in 12 months time as to whether or not the Study Group would become a Working Group in its own right.

The CSCAP members from the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand were particularly supportive of the Australian initiative, and it was agreed that the Study Group would be co-chaired by the Philippines, Thailand and Australia, with the first meeting planned for Manila in August. For internal reasons, the Philippines was not able to host the meeting in Manila, but an alternative meeting in Singapore is currently under consideration, which would use the research paper written by the AFP's John McFarlane and Karen McLennan of OSCA, as the basis for initiating discussion and developing a research agenda.

The aim of the Study Group would be to ascertain the security implications of crime in the Asia Pacific region in order to better understand the nature of threat posed by criminal groups and to assist in developing strategies to counter that threat. In particular, the Study Group would seem well suited as a forum for:

• helping to integrate existing anti-crime initiatives already being undertaken by regional organisations;
• furthering bilateral cooperation on criminal matters;
• formulating measures for improving the region's response to crime;
• analysing and discussing the security implications of transnational crime;
• raising the profile of law enforcement concerns on national and regional security agendas, and vice versa;
• providing a regional perspective on transnational crime and its impact;
• advancing the conceptual work on security already carried out by the Working Group on Comprehensive and Cooperative Security.

Alan Dupont, SDSC

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

REPORT ON THE CSCAP WORKING GROUP MEETING ON CSBMS
WASHINGTON, 22-23 APRIL 1996

The CSCAP CSBM Meeting was held at the CSIS Headquarters in Washington DC, April 22-23. It attracted a diverse group of scholars, think-tank analysts and officials - the latter of course in their 'private capacity'. The meeting was notable for the fact that relations between the Taiwan and Chinese participants was both cordial and professional.

The meeting had three main themes. First, the possibility of creating a 'generic' Asia-Pacific Defence Policy paper which would serve as a standard and an example for regional states to emulate. Second, a further exploration of the idea of arms registers as transparency and confidence-building measures.

Third, the idea of creating an Asian version of EURATOM to encourage regional nuclear cooperation in the civil field.

The thinking behind both the arms register proposal and that for a 'generic' Asia-Pacific Defence Policy paper (some preferred the term Defence White Paper) is that each contributes towards greater transparency and that transparency contributes to security. The provision of information about defence capabilities, deployments, exercises and doctrines will, it is argued, act as important measures of reassurance between states which are uncertain about each other's strategic intentions.

It is not difficult to find examples of where lack of transparency has exacerbated existing tensions and increased 'security dilemma' risks. A combination of Soviet secrecy and lack of accurate US intelligence caused defence planners in Washington to exaggerate Russian nuclear capabilities in the early years of the Cold War. The US responded to the supposed increased threat by building up its forces. This led to a major Soviet counter-response and accelerated the strategic arms race.

But proponents of CSBMs sometimes forget that military planners may see strategic advantage in avoiding transparency. Concealing both military strengths and weaknesses may sometimes seem necessary to strategists. In 1967, the last thing that Israeli strategists would have wanted would have been to be constrained by transparency and confidence-building measures designed to reduce the likelihood of surprise attack. Israel's strategy in the 1967 war was predicated on surprise.

China clearly believes that too much transparency could jeopardise its security, which is why its Defence White Papers are far less revealing than those of other regional states and why it has sought to reduce the intrusiveness of the on-site verification regimes associated with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty. The Chinese argue that their relative weakness vis ˆ vis Russia and the US means that they cannot afford to adopt transparency measures that would be - in their view - too revealing. North Korea's obsessive secrecy almost certainly arises in part because transparency would reveal many of its military weaknesses to its arch enemy in the South.

Even in Australia, a country which espouses the virtues of military transparency insistently, former senior officials have indicated that there are real limits to what can be revealed. Canberra would, for example, be very reluctant to reveal the numbers of Harpoon cruise missiles in its strategic inventory.

In part for these reasons there seems at the moment little official support in the region for a Regional Arms Register which would go beyond the modest reporting requirements of the UN Register. The idea of having regional regimes which go beyond global regimes is not new - most Nuclear Weapon Free Zones are broader in scope than the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

This issue raised a difficult question for CSCAP. Even if there are good security arguments for the arms register approach to enhancing transparency - and such arguments have been persuasively made by Dr Malcolm Chalmers, should this approach be pushed at the official level if regional states remained unenthusiastic.

The 'generic Defence White Paper' idea was relatively new and generated considerable discussion. Those who backed the idea argued that, while support for 'White Papers' had grown, there was a real need to standardise so that like could be compared with like. As Panitan Wattanayagorn's background paper noted: 'There are no agreed guidelines ... on what should be included in a white paper, how often it should be released, or who and what agency should be responsible for the paper.' Against this it was argued that creating benchmarks for what should or should not be in White Papers could be seen as a means of bringing pressure to bear on regional states - like China - which might respond negatively.

Finally there were two proposals for creating an Asia-Pacific version of EURATOM. Here it was argued that the growing reliance of Northeast Asian states on nuclear energy had created the need for a region-wide cooperative arrangement which would enhance nuclear safety and help reduce the risks of nuclear proliferation. Implementing an ASIATOM (or PACATOM) would not be not be easy given regional sensitivities on a range of nuclear issues, but there seemed to be general consensus within the meeting that this is a proposal worth exploring further.

Professor Andrew Mack, International Relations, ANU

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

This WWW server is provided by the Coombs Computing Unit, Research Schools of Social Sciences & Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University, Canberra.

Maintainer: Stephen Bates (auscscap@anu.edu.au), ANU, Canberra

Copyright & copy; 1996 by Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, ANU. This Web page may be linked to any other Web pages. Contents may not be altered.

URL http:Auscnws3.html

[ Asian Studies WWW VL ] [ Coombsweb ] [ Social Sciences WWW WL]